1. In the US, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act already prohibits this. For other things, like "are you a skydiver", the insurance company already has the right to ask you that.
2. I mean, sure, I'm sure I've broken some laws, but I can't think of any examples of overly agressive prosecutions for people who weren't already guilty of bad shit.
3. I mean, people are already used to creepy hypertargeted Facebook ads, most of them have don't really care anymore.
4. I mean sure, but how does this affect me?
5. This just sounds like a hand-wavy slippery slope argument.
I think the issue for most people in the US is that they still fundamentally believe that the justice system is generally "just", at least with respect to themselves, though that is obviously changing. Contrast that with Germany, where people are vividly aware of what happens when the government uses personal data nefariously.
If you assume the other way, pervasive surveillance makes a frame-up easier.
And your rejoinder doesn't make sense. If you were being railroaded for a crime video showing that you didn't do it cant hurt you.
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/11/18/body-camera-aurora-pol...
> Police Chief Nick Metz said he wants to release body camera footage from the August death of Elijah McClain to lend more transparency to the investigation. But three months later, police still have it — advised by the district attorney’s office to keep it in house.
In the UK as well, there have been several cases where the police have chosen only to disclose “relevant” evidence, when the existence of additional evidence becomes known the case collapses.
Really? Where? Because in most countries with laws requiring that, police and prosecutors regularly ignore said laws with impunity.
I wonder how the arguments against surveillance capitalism poll across targeted minorities vs. the general population. I speculate that sentiments diverge in the same direction as sentiments towards the police.
But I agree with your sentiment otherwise.
To be clear, I don't agree with that, or any of the 5 points I put above. But I still think it's important to emphasize that 90+ percent of people will look at that and similar cases and think "that situation doesn't apply to me."
That only applies to genetic data. There are several ways for your insurer to find out everything wrong with you, especially when many medical practices sell your data. It does not cover any other type of insurance, other than health insurance. Genetic information can be used to discriminate in disability insurance, long-term care insurance, life insurance etc.
I think you highlighted a bigger core issue: people think that the past was somehow better and what they're seeing in their time is unique. The justice system isn't changing, it's been like this for at least a century, probably longer. America hasn't just elected its first rabble rousing demagogue for a president and now the country is going to shit, this has happened before. Multiple times.
This is worrisome to me because it causes emotional overreactions to situations that aren't really that unprecedented. We elected Donald Trump, and obviously we are special so we have to make sure this doesn't happen again. The punchline is that we are ignorant of the past and are unaware that the republic has carried on just fine after previously awful presidents, and without that knowledge, we may make a number of bad decisions that negatively affect the future of this country.
I've never really understood this one. Do you want to force insurance companies to spread the costs associated with insuring high-risk individuals across their whole clientele via this information opacity? Why not just use a single-payer system instead of that Rube Goldberg machine at this point?
That make sense, do you really expect insurance company to not charge higher premium to insure someone who predisposed to a disease ?
>The Fed gov’t has ~20,000 laws, it has more than it can count, can you tell me that you haven’t broken a single one? Could a creative prosecutor find something you’re guilty of if they had enough information on you?
Then the issue is with too many laws
>How would you like it if corporations know details about your family before you do?
Doesn't matter
>The world is filled with clever and unscrupulous people, they will never stop finding ways to use your data in ways we can’t imagine, not all of them will be in your favor.
This will be the always the case, regardless of surveillance or not.
I don't support insurance billing more for predisposition to disease, but that's already covered under the law so your point 1 is kind of irrelevant.
This study about the impact of an incentive program for preventive care concluded: "Voluntary participation in a patient incentive program was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of receiving preventive care, though receipt of preventive care among those in the program was still lower than ideal."
https://www.ajmc.com/journals/issue/2014/2014-vol20-n6/impac...
> predisposition to disease What about pre-existing conditions?
The idea of insurers being willing to pass the savings, if they existed, down to their customers in any significant way is cute, though.
What about those who work to stay fit but are still fat according to their BMI? Not everyone gets dealt a good genetic hand.
people should read "the trial" and internalize it (and ponder what historical context prompted kafka to write it).
2. Again, solving the wrong problem. Also, coming to the attention of a prosecutor with a sufficient vendetta to go to various companies to try to dig up dirt seems rather far-fetched. And if they couldn't use personal data for that purpose, wouldn't they find another avenue?
3. If I had kids, I'd want them to be protected - it certainly seems reasonable that children's personal data be protected. Once they become adults, though, I don't see why a parent should have any control over their adult children's behavior.
4. Firstly, you're assuming that your interlocutor shares your concerns about the uses to which that data could be put. Second, data goes stale, meaning it ceases to be valuable or potentially harmful.
5. And the world is also filled with clever and scrupulous people who want to use personal data in ways we can't imagine to everyone's benefit. Shutting down collection and use of personal data prevents those beneficial uses as well as any harmful ones (indeed more so).
2. The Fed gov’t has ~20,000 laws, it has more than it can count, can you tell me that you haven’t broken a single one? Could a creative prosecutor find something you’re guilty of if they had enough information on you?
3. In 2012 (edit: 2010) target sent ads to a teen girl for baby supplies, the father angrily talked to the store manager asking why they were sending baby supply ads to his daughter. When he found out his daughter was pregnant, he apologized to the store manager. Target had a good idea the girl was pregnant because of the items she bought in their store. How would you like it if corporations know details about your family before you do? (Pro tip: they already know things you don’t know)
4. Organizations are not monolithic, they’re full of people who are constantly moving around and organizational priorities change. Any restrictions on use and protections will be ignored eventually and changed in privacy policies, which they have complete discretion to change.
5. The world is filled with clever and unscrupulous people, they will never stop finding ways to use your data in ways we can’t imagine, not all of them will be in your favor.